From: noemailexists@example.com   
      
   Bice wrote:   
   > Yeah, the pointless killing just to show "this guy's really evil" was   
   > a bit over the top.   
   >   
   >   
   > Well, that's pretty much what the ending was pointing towards.  I   
   > imagine that will be the main plot element of a third movie, if one   
   > ever gets made.   
   >   
   >   -- Bob   
      
   I think the killing, if memory serves, was related to the fact that   
   replicants could be created, but for some reason could not be   
   created fertile. Since Leto's character was searching for fertile   
   replicants, the one he killed was executed for being infertile.   
      
   Some mention was made earlier that a massive blackout had   
   occurred at some point in the past that wiped out all or most of   
   the data the Tyrell corporation had on replicants. The Leto   
   character wanted to mass produce replicants, but he couldn't   
   grow them fast enough to feed demand or develop the market   
   capitalization he wanted. The fact that Decker and Rachel were   
   able to conceive meant that Tyrell had found a breakthrough that   
   Leto had been searching for, but the data had been wiped in the   
   blackout some years ago.   
      
   Re: Replicant Rights   
   I think the theme of the story was that it didn't matter who was   
   "real" and who was not. The value of being a sentient being was   
   making one's own choice and having personal agency in life. As   
   a result, Ryan Gosling's replicant character was constantly being   
   told what to do by at least two factions that wanted him to be   
   their servant. One side was the human Bladerunner unit that was   
   using him to hunt down other replicants. The other was the   
   replicant resistance movement that had taken their idea of   
   freedom to the point of religion. In the end, rather than doing   
   what either of them wanted him to do, he did what he thought   
   was right. If indeed he died in the end (SPOILERS), he died   
   a self-realized being, not a servile one.   
      
   A lot of the film is left ambiguous, I think, for dual effect.   
   On the one hand, the audience was meant to chew on and ponder   
   the unanswered questions, and on the other hand, Gosling's   
   character was trying to deal with the world without a lot   
   of critical information. He was just as confused as the   
   audience was and had to decide who he was going to be with   
   a lot of gaps in what he understood was going on around him.   
      
   That's my thought on this, anyway. The film was definitely   
   not for everybody. The original Bladerunner was mostly a cult   
   film by accident while 2049 was trying to create the   
   ambiguity that came from some of the shenanigans surrounding   
   the myriad of edits in the original. This was coupled with   
   modern filmmaking sensibilities and the final product is   
   fundamentally worthwhile or not depending on one views the   
   whole mix of it all.   
      
   Again, just my thoughts on the film. Take it for what it is   
   worth.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)